The SitePoint Forums have moved.

You can now find them here.
This forum is now closed to new posts, but you can browse existing content.
You can find out more information about the move and how to open a new account (if necessary) here.
If you get stuck you can get support by emailing forums@sitepoint.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Military warns of torched oil wells

I've been hearing about this lately that if we invade Iraq, Saddam will start torching oil wells. There is a video link on CNN's home page about this very subject but I can't view it. Has anyone heard any news about this today (specifically referring to the link under "Developing Story")?

Have heard about it, but haven't seen it online. I am not a CNN subscriber so can't view the video either. Actually makes sense. It won't be the first time that he has torched oil wells, used his own people as shields or killed his own people with weapons of mass destruction.

Lately, all I have heard about is the tornado in Mississippi, two hours ago, that pretty much demolished a town including a packed Wal-mart and supermarket.

Um, just read it on CNN this morning (the article)... Can't seem to find it now.

Basically saying that Saddam is likely to abandon the south, concentrate in Baghdad and burn as he retreats. If cornered he will likely fire, according to the article, at Iran, Israel, Kuwait and US troops with any WMD he may or may not have.

It was basically from a briefing with reporters by Powell yesterday, though I'm repeating this all from memory because I can't find it now

Maybe the video will revert to a link after more unfolds. I'm assuming something is happening now since it was under "Developing Story" earlier.

Heard about the Tornado earlier too. Never been in a tornado; have seen them plenty, but never actually been in one. Must be horrifying.

If anyone should hear anything, please post a link. I don't have a television at the moment. I noticed too, the stock took a dump again today. Sure that has to do with fear of war but just wondering if this story has any connection. If it is in fact a story or just another docudrama.

Yep, Iraq has been getting a lot of advice from Russian military....Iraq is planning to use the same tactics that Russia used against Nazi Germany when they were defending themselves against invasion....as the U.S, moves into the country of Iraq, the plan will be to destroy everything behind as the Iraqis retreat, Iraq has already laid high charge plastic explosives in the raods and airports to slow the invasion, Because this war is about Oil, Iraq plans to destroy all oil facilities and pipes so as to leave nothing for the American oil companies, this will add billions to the cost of stripping Iraq of its oil to the big U.S. oil companies and is causing great concern , its really a very good defensive tactic by Iraq. Down through history other countries have also used this defense against foreign invasions.
The reason for burning the oil wells is because the smoke will block the U.S. satellites.
There was a plan a while back to pump salted water into the oil, Enron estimated the cost of fixing that at 12 billion, Iraq has about 122 billion in oil reserves.
If Iraq is going to defend itself, its only real option is going to be to destroy the oil, becuse without oil, there will be no invasion.

I was readng about it on FOX yesterday...called it Sadaam's Scorched Earth Policy and it would be against more than just oil facilities but industrialized zones, warehouses, air stations etc. In a situation where Sadamme feel's he's about to be toppled, the easiest and quickest target would be his own people, blaming it on the coalition and then "retaliating" against Israel and the rest.

Its NOT a scorched earth policy...that in military terms only refers to the attacking country...example, in Serbia the U.S. targetted water, electricity, food depots, industrial compounds, etc...these targets had zero relevence to Kosovo, as such this what is called a scorched earth campaign under the geneva convention and is classed as a "War Crime"...there have been some 36,000 cases filed in Britain for war crimes against Britain and the U.S. over this in Serbia, but so far these cases linger in no-mans land. Iraq is using a self defence technique that almost every country in the world has used down through time in defence against a foreign invasion, and under the Geneva convention it is legally allowed!

Originally posted by subslavebrandon ...and under the Geneva convention it is legally allowed!

You really can't just through out a well-known treaty and hope it'll stick or validate your opinion. The Geneva Convention applies to the treatment of people, not property.

Few people debate whether Iraq has the right (or will exercise it) to fire back in full-blown hostilities--that doesn't mean that it's the smartest thing to do. Additionally, burning oil fields might limit satellite viewing, but that's hardly the only trick up DOD's sleeve.

Yep, Iraq has been getting a lot of advice from Russian military....Iraq is planning to use the same tactics that Russia used against Nazi Germany when they were defending themselves against invasion....

Now, that line scares me, since the USSR weaponized small pox to use in case someone (namely the US) invaded them. :-(

Originally posted by Ian Glass Now, that line scares me, since the USSR weaponized small pox to use in case someone (namely the US) invaded them. :-(

Why do you think every person in the United States will be immunized for this next year? Our military already gets small-pox immunization among immunizations for about 100 different diseases and a single shot immunoglobulin of 20 cc's.

That news article is disgusting. It is totally US biased and states as facts points that are very doubtful.

With the U.S. statement Thursday that Iraq is failing to comply with U.N. demands for a complete declaration of its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, forces are one step closer to going to war and facing Saddam's treachery.

So the US government (who we all can trust) says this but gives no concrete evidence other that the usual "our intelligence suggests..."

What is the use of the UN if the US is going to state what it believes, give no concrete evidence and then start a war?

Destruction of this magnitude, however, would distract troops during the war and make securing peace afterward much more difficult.

"[Saddam] is going to do things that impact terribly on a civilian population that's trying to survive in a war, and the responsibility for their survival will fall quickly on U.S forces," Cowan said.

Well i hope the US forces actually take on that responsibilty..
anyone seen Three Kings? I know it is just a movie, but the about face the US did on the Kurds was real and a lot of people were manipulated and betrayed.

By the way i think Saddam is a disgusting person, and i'm not defending him, but some of the US media is just spinning half truths and not discussing the topic fairly or rationally

Actually, the US is releasing its information to the UN Security council. They will be the ones who make the final decision, that has always been the case.

I am pretty curious as to how old you are and how much in the real world you have been. It seems to me you need to grow up and realize that you can't take one source of information to base your opinions on.

Originally posted by W. Luke Actually, the US is releasing its information to the UN Security council. They will be the ones who make the final decision, that has always been the case.

I am pretty curious as to how old you are and how much in the real world you have been. It seems to me you need to grow up and realize that you can't take one source of information to base your opinions on.

That's a bit nasty!

I don't rely on one source of information. In fact i try to read and understand any viewpoint no matter how much i disagree. I just think that the above news article was not well researched and presented biased opinion as fact.

I don't think its immature to think that the US government has more influence on the UN than anyone and everyone else, and alot of the time the UN does things purely based on US pressure. Where do you think this latest 'inquiry' into Iraq started?

I am 21 and although i haven't been all round the world, i have explored as much as financially possible, and take part in quite a few discussions on politics and world affairs.

I'm not trying to say other people are wrong just voicing my opinion. I haven't attacked people, and if you want me to shut up, then i'll go elsewhere.

Originally posted by trickie I ... think that the US government has more influence on the UN than anyone and everyone else, and alot of the time the UN does things purely based on US pressure.

As for the influence part, you don't really need to read much past the first three words of the UN charter to realize that. As for "US pressure," that has such a negative connotation--I suppose "US concerns" would be more accurate. And it's mutual--you think Bush would've gone to the UN at all if not for UN concerns? :-)

I think that the reason that Bush bothered to go through UN is that he would have alienated too many allies.

I just think Bush is a war mongerer and the moderates in the UN are trying as much as possible to avert a war. Bush will get what he wants, whether he breaks international law (and goes against international opinion, which by the way is not just the leaders ie. Blair)or not (see the Camp X-ray fiasco)

The reason, I questioned your age is because your posts in this forum are full of rhetoric and on most systems would be considered trolling. In fact the first reaction, that I have when I see you post in here is whether or not to delete it without question.

Originally posted by trickie
[B]I don't rely on one source of information. In fact i try to read and understand any viewpoint no matter how much i disagree. I just think that the above news article was not well researched and presented biased opinion as fact.

Actually, your posts don't seem to be based on fact at all but rhetoric commonplace in all media. This is why I asked what your experience is. If it was based on fact, you would know that the United States only has one vote in the UN and it comes down to politicking as usual. Each and every country goes to the UN with their own agenda and they work their "magic" to get others to listen to them. For the current resolution for inspections on Iraq, it would have only taken one vote from the Security Council's permanent members to overrule it. This prompted lengthy and intense negotiations until all 5 permanent members agreed to it. Furthermore it passed unanimously. This includes some of Iraq's allies and trading partners.

I don't think its immature to think that the US government has more influence on the UN than anyone and everyone else, and a lot of the time the UN does things purely based on US pressure. Where do you think this latest 'inquiry' into Iraq started?

The latest inquiry to Iraq started when they invaded Kuwait in 1990 and subsequently were forced to pull out. Under the International Treaty signed at the time, Iraq agreed to disarm their military. Whether they have or haven't has to be determined. Is it so difficult to understand why this should be determined. The issue came up two years ago when the US government was lifting sanctions on many countries including possibly Iraq.

Originally posted by W. Luke Under the International Treaty signed at the time, Iraq agreed to disarm their military.

I find that argument immensly weak when the main country using it as an excuse to wage a financial war is guilty of the same thing many more times. ABM/Kyoto (I know some will argue that point) etc etc etc...

We never agreed to disarm... We did agree to reduce the levels of Nuclear Weapons and are actually doing so with about half the arsenal we had 5-10 years ago. Efforts that are still ongoing.

AS far as I am aware, the only UN sponsored weapons treaty that affects the U.S. is a part of is the Non-Proliferation agreement. Let's not confuse the issue here.

The policy described by Saddam Hussein, will really only hurt one group of people. It will destroy what little economy is available among the Iraqi people. It will then fall among any coalition members to feed, clothe and house those individuals until such time as the economy is rebuilt. They sure as hell won't get it from elsewhere.

Originally posted by W. Luke The reason, I questioned your age is because your posts in this forum are full of rhetoric and on most systems would be considered trolling. In fact the first reaction, that I have when I see you post in here is whether or not to delete it without question.

I don't think i troll anyone. I am just discussing what i think are the issues behind the issues. I agree i don't post alot of links to news stories etc, but that is because the mass media is a tool to disguise the real issues.

I won't post in this forum anymore. If i have offended anybody, or they think i have trolled them, then i'm sorry.

The policy described by Saddam Hussein, will really only hurt one group of people.

One last point. True the Iraqi have suffered greatly under Saddam, but the US-led solution to the problem, will lead to more indirect suffering, and is really just grasp for oil and military power in the area.